October 8, 2012

A NYT article displays sympathy to the victims of affirmative action... in India.

In Tamil Nadu, for instance, 69 percent of university admissions are now set aside for what the state has determined to be “backward castes.” Many of those favored with these set-asides have controlled Tamil Nadu’s government and much of its resources for generations, but they claim special status by pointing to a caste survey done in 1931....

Five prominent university officials in Tamil Nadu said in interviews that those given set-asides at their institutions were generally the children of doctors, lawyers and high-level bureaucrats. The result is that rich students routinely get preference over more accomplished poor ones who do not happen to belong to the favored castes. None of the officials would allow their names to be used for fear of angering the government ministers who benefit politically and personally from the program.

As I think is intended, I really don't see the difference with the U.S. Preferences at many schools, and esp. the better ones, go to the children of affluent educated preferred minorities. Which is why the claim has long been that what "diversity" promotes is visual diversity, and not socioeconomic diversity.

As is true of most things in India, affirmative action is another muddle. Unlike here, it is based on quotas and there are many groups who get their share of the pie. The numbers are nothing like you have seen here with India's humongous population. You make it better for one generation and you would expect them to make way for others, voluntarily relinquishing their advantage to another needy family but that never happens. Human greed takes over. There was one prominent businessman who came up using AA and said he would never let his children take AA advantage now that he had made it. People like him are rare. You have to think of India as infinite layers given its population -- you make it better for one layer but another takes over and the cycle is never ending.

South Africa’s race-based AA policies, aimed at uplifting the 90% of the population who are not white, have degenerated into something resembling the situation in Tamil Nadu. It is no longer even skin colour that determines if one gets a place in university and the resulting job, but rather how “African” you are deemed to be. Indian South Africans, of whatever caste, and Coloured South Africans, (mixed race) while deemed black, are not African, and thus less worthy. It has even been suggested that these two groups, who generally vote against the ruling party, should move away from the areas where they constitute a majority, in order to increase their employment opportunities. Whites are discriminated against in most facets of life, including team selection in sport to not being permitted to buy equities in certain companies. This, and other factors, has resulted in 20% of whites emigrated. The wealth gap between the haves and the have nots is now greater than under Apartheid… The only difference being, now there are more politically connected blacks amongst the haves.

Indian South Africans, of whatever caste, and Coloured South Africans, (mixed race) while deemed black, are not African, and thus less worthy.

I heard about this from a friend who was vacationing in SA. The ancestors of these Indian South Africans were taken there by the British and left there with no opportunity to go back home. Every immigrant feels caught between their home and adopted countries but these people's plight is different. Mississippi Masala, Nair's movie documents the struggle of this population in Uganda when Idi Amin forced them to leave the country en masse.

America is perhaps the only country in the world that gives immigrants the opportunity to become fully integrated citizens if they so choose.

Affirmative action is trickle down social justice. So how does this relate to the coming election?

I’ll admit that it was a relief to hear Obama say that Sasha & Malia might not need affirmative action. Most people wanted to hear this, even hardline Democrat black voters. The debate is exhausting & demoralizing.

I'm not arguing that racism is "over". It was just heartening to see some light at the end of the AA tunnel.

If Obama actually had done something about this in terms of legislation, I might feel bad about voting against him.

So, South Africa has experienced regression to the old ruling order. Well, that is to be expected. Their concept of "progress" denigrates individual dignity and relies on improving the human condition through redistributive change.

They should have known the processes they were installing engendered progressive corruption. They should have known that unlike classical liberalism, left-wing ideologies are designed to consolidate wealth and power in minority hands.

Oh, well. Another project in retrograde evolution realizes its predictable goal. There are better compromises, but people, especially opportunists, dream of instant gratification. They deceive the vulnerable to accept an outcome inconsistent with the constrains imposed by reality.

Their treatment of illegal aliens also leaves a lot to be desired. In the West, people of the indigenous population are murdered, raped, and displaced. In South Africa, the uninvited alien doesn't stand a chance.

The problem is not "racism". The problem is a system designed to treat symptoms rather than address causes. Black Americans in general have experienced sabotaged character development. Their families are, in the majority, single parent households. The first level of social organization, the family, and most notably the father, has been marginalized and undermined through "good intentions." They are the beneficiaries of the corruption which involuntary redistribution schemes engender.